Welcome to HVAC-Talk.com, a non-DIY site and the ultimate Source for HVAC Information & Knowledge Sharing for the industry professional! Here you can join over 150,000 HVAC Professionals & enthusiasts from around the world discussing all things related to HVAC/R. You are currently viewing as a NON-REGISTERED guest which gives you limited access to view discussions

To gain full access to our forums you must register; for a free account. As a registered Guest you will be able to:

Participate in over 40 different forums and search/browse from nearly 3 million posts.

Geer, tune in to reality for a second, did I ever say it was not a mandate?

Did the author say it wasn't a mandate? No, he said,

"But the version of the health insurance mandateHeritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on “catastrophic” costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement."

He also said, that the ObamaCare idea of a mandate did not come from the Heritage Proposal, nor was the Heritage Foundation the inventor of the idea?

I was simply clarifying the post that NET made which was not fully accurate.

Now, from where did you get that I said it wasn't a mandate. I simply tried to show they are apples and oranges.

In 1977, while serving as a consultant to the administration of President Carter, he designed and proposed Consumer Choice Health Plan, a plan for universal health insurance based on managed competition in the private sector. Since 1980, his teaching has been focused on health care.

The words "managed competition in the private sector" are key. The Heritage Foundation proposal was based on Enthoven's work. Both have similarities to Obama's plan, it's true. What is not true is that Obama's plan was suggested by ANY party before (to the best of my knowledge) since similar proposals made by both economists and health care professionals always sought the free market model. Not goverment intervention.

So I stand by my original question. Will the Heritage Foundation apologize for suggesting the individual mandate? For a more complete synopsis I will post a link from Forbes so that the wing nuts might become educated regarding the previous attempts of the GOP and conservatives to SOCIALIZE health care.http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...idual-mandate/

It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

Geer, tune in to reality for a second, did I ever say it was not a mandate?

Did the author say it wasn't a mandate? No, he said,

"But the version of the health insurance mandateHeritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on “catastrophic” costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement."

He also said, that the ObamaCare idea of a mandate did not come from the Heritage Proposal, nor was the Heritage Foundation the inventor of the idea?

Yes, yes, I read the dude's attempt to rationalize his contribution to the crafting of the Obamacare mandate.

Not really a compelling case.

I was simply clarifying the post that NET made which was not fully accurate.

Oh, I see the effort to distance from Obamacare but both mandates differ in no significant ways.

Now, from where did you get that I said it wasn't a mandate. I simply tried to show they are apples and oranges.

You are correct that you didn't say it wasn't a mandate.

Apples and oranges?......not so much.

I guess you get a DOUBLE DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will penalize myself the loss of one Tecate.

Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

So I stand by my original question. Will the Heritage Foundation apologize for suggesting the individual mandate? For a more complete synopsis I will post a link from Forbes so that the wing nuts might become educated regarding the previous attempts of the GOP and conservatives to SOCIALIZE health care.http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...idual-mandate/

Please read the actual Heritage proposal and link to your argument from that instead of, as I mentioned, other poorly informed pundits as it did not all start in 1986 as already shown.

When you make a claim about a source, why do you continually avoid that source?

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." ― Bertrand Russell

So I stand by my original question. Will the Heritage Foundation apologize for suggesting the individual mandate? For a more complete synopsis I will post a link from Forbes so that the wing nuts might become educated regarding the previous attempts of the GOP and conservatives to SOCIALIZE health care.http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...idual-mandate/

Actually NET, that's a pretty good article. Still don't like the mandate idea as it's against personal liberty and personal responsibility in my book.

Also, pretty funny how Obama was so against the personal mandate in 2008 but not so, after he got the nomination. Guess we got some flip floppers on the left and on the right.

As for your original question, why would they (Heritage) apologize? Who cares! It was wrong and a bad proposal then, it's still bad. Will Obama apologize if its struck down? It's got his signature on it not Stuart Butler's...

Please read the actual Heritage proposal and link to your argument from that instead of, as I mentioned, other poorly informed pundits as it did not all start in 1986 as already shown.

When you make a claim about a source, why do you continually avoid that source?

I don't think Avik Roy is a poorly informed pundit on this one. He's got a little history on this issue, maybe not all the way back to 89 but he has been involved in the battles on the healthcare reform front.

And as far as the original proposal from the Heritage and Mr. Butler, this is what I found from 1989, is this what you are saying should be referenced?

Actually if you read it objectively, the following is what follows your portion quoted above,

"Why has Heritage changed its mind?

Stuart goes on to give four reasons why he and Heritage no longer support the mandate: (1) a mandate isn’t necessary because “the new field of behavioral economics taught me that default auto-enrollment in employer or nonemployer insurance plans can lead many people to buy coverage without a requirement;” (2) “advances in ‘risk-adjustment’ tools are improving the stability of voluntary insurance,” as illustrated by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; (3) Obamacare’s mandate forces people to buy comprehensive coverage rather than catastrophic coverage; (4) Obamacare’s mandate is unconstitutional.

Stuart, of course, is perfectly entitled to change his mind, and the reasons he gives for having done so are ones I’d agree with. (I would also point out, as I do repeatedly in this space, that the “free rider” problem is grossly exaggerated, and that an individual mandate actually increases free-riding.)"

So, I'm not sure I agree with your first sentence.

And as far as apples and oranges, they are both different but still both the same. Comprehensive (ObamaCare) versus catastrophic coverage (Heritage) is a pretty big difference in scope and resultingly in gov't reach and price of the implemented plan. Both still wrong.